Originally Posted by Dadawg_77
I said "in general" and you bring up a single case to dispute it. The fact is lot more "tools" phenoms without the production fail then guys without the "tools" who produce do and guys without the "tools" but produce succeed more often then the "tools" phenoms without the production. You can back that claim up with research.
Scouting isn't worth much when you look at minor leaguers, all the intangibles you mention would be worth something if a player produces thus covered by looking at the numbers. The player tells you everything you need to know by whether or not they are producing in the minors.
Back to the list, ***? Joe Mauer is their number one prospect? Come on now, the only reason this guy could be consider was he got hurt last year. That is a cheap choice.
When using performance-based analysis of draft-eligible players, you're limiting yourself to really only college players. Doing that more than halves your draft/talent-pool. On top of that, unless you have top 10 picks every year (where the top-producing college players, especially pitchers, usually end up), you're pool of players has been greatly pulled over with a fine-tooth comb. This method is no-doubt a good way to draft players with a higher chance of making/producing in the majors and generally in a shorter period of time, but it also GREATLY reduces the chances for drafting/developing a star/stud and limits the utility gained by drafting anywhere after the top 12-15 rounds.
That is the major fault I find with applying performance-based analysis to draft-eligible players. HS players not only have the greatest opportunity for coaching and development, but finding the ones that are physically talented and mentally capable is what GOOD scouting is. There are a lot of bad scouts out there working in baseball, don't get me wrong, but you brandish your keyboard against all scouts as some kind of Excallibur, and it's patently ridiculous...